FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IN THE CONCEPT OF SUPPORTING THE TROOPS BETWEEN BUSH AND THE REST OF US

Yesterday's Army Times reported that the Bush Regime would oppose congressional efforts to give the troops a pay raise "intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay."

Troops don’t need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill.

The Bush administration had asked for a 3 percent military raise for Jan. 1, 2008, enough to match last year’s average pay increase in the private sector. The House Armed Services Committee recommends a 3.5 percent pay increase for 2008, and increases in 2009 through 2012 that also are 0.5 percentage point greater than private-sector pay raises...

Bush budget officials said the administration “strongly opposes” both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases “unnecessary.”

Anyone who claims that Bush's Iraq blunders have been utterly disastrous for everyone involved isn't thinking about one of his core constituencies-- a constituency that has benefited to the tune of many many billions of dollars: "war-oriented contractors." His family's wealth is tried up in war contracting as is the wealth of many inside the Regime-- not the least of whom is Cheney. To Bush "support the troops" has always been a cynical way of saying "make us richer." And that is an awful narrow "us," he's referring to.

Even a lowlife and corrupt machine pol like Rahm Emanuel recognizes the dearth of morality permeating the Bush Regime's position on this one: “We ask our troops to risk their lives for our nation," barks Emanuel. "We ask their spouses to raise families and make ends meet without them as they serve. The President is a lot of talk when it comes to supporting the troops and their families. It’s easy to say you support our troops, but actions matter and when it comes to the treatment of our troops and their families, our resources must match our rhetoric.”

This is a powerful issue that Democrats need to hammer home so the public understands where Bush, fundamentally, is coming from. And the batch of Republican creeps running to take over when he's finally gone? Just as bad, perhaps, in the cases of Giuliani, Hunter and Romney, even worse.

There is no way to understand Bush's otherwise unexplainable attack on and occupation of Iraq without examining the role of war profiteers. This 4 minute video can help you start the job of that examination.